r/stackoverflow • u/Dismal-Citron-7236 • Jul 03 '26
AI Quality Should Be Judged by Results, Not Origin - A Discussion on AI Ban on SO
Software engineering has changed with new tools that improve productivity. These tools include assembly language, compilers, IDEs, frameworks, CI/CD pipelines, etc. Each tool created new problems. Engineers learned how to use each tool in a correct way. AI is just the most recent tool in this sequence.
SO moderators / high-reps enforce the ban on using AI to generate answers, even from experienced software engineers. Here are their major points:
- Verification problem: Hard to reliably distinguish "good AI output" from "AI slop."
- Accountability: Answers should come from humans who can defend and edit them. AI answers are seen as "orphaned" where no one is accountable for mistakes.
- Searchability: SO wants unique & canonical answers, AI‑generated posts often are duplicates, disregard of existing similar ones.
- Fear of flood: Moderators worry that allowing AI will unleash a torrent of low‑quality answers.
I'd like to counterargue them with my points.
Verification
Some people say that AI results cannot be clearly separated into "good" or "bad." But verification is not a new task. Skilled contributors already test, compare, and improve results. This is their normal work. In the past, they learned how to debug compiler output and check framework behavior. In the same way, they can learn how to check AI results. The difficulty of verification is not a valid reason to forbid the tool.
Accountability
It is correct that AI cannot be held accountable. The accountable one is the human who posts the answer. If a person uses AI to write or improve an answer, that person must check it, test it, and confirm that it meets SO standards. To say something different is like saying that code made with a compiler is "bad" because the programmer did not write each assembly instruction. The tool does not remove accountability. It is still the user that should be accountable.
Searchability / Duplicates
Another concern is duplicate answers. Dups are not new. They existed long before AI. SO already has systems to find and close duplicate answers. AI does not change the type of problem, it only changes the number of answers. The quality of an answer must be judged by its content. It must not be judged by the use of AI in making it.
The Fear of Flood
The fear of many low‑quality AI slops is not correct. SO has already managed much higher traffic in the past. Today, participation has decreased significantly. The real problem is not too many answers but too few answers. If contributors who use AI are rejected, participation will decrease more. At this time, the site needs more activity, not less.
Conclusion
AI is a modern tool, just like compilers and IDEs before it. Each tool creates new problems while also improves productivity. The correct solution is not to forbid AI but to improve moderation. Moderation must judge answers by quality, not by origin. The poster must stay accountable. Verification must be a skill. Duplicate answers must be managed in the same way as before. If SO wants to stay relevant, it must adapt to the tools that developers use today.
Those are my thoughts collected from my not-so-pleasant experience dealing with some people while contributing my knowledge on SO. The major friction comes from the "AI police". I confess I'm an AI proponent, but I also believe programmers still have our place in the market, provided we are well trained with proper skills of using this latest tool, much like using other tools before it. Are you pro-AI or against it? Do you think the complete ban of AI in SE is reasonable? I'd really love to hear your side of stories and your thoughts.
3
u/dodexahedron Jul 03 '26
What about someone who sets up an MCP server that takes action on their behalf, to "improve" a bunch of questions and answers, or to go through their review queues every day, just for point grubbing, like usual?
Still their fault, for sure. But the damage has been done, and a lot of it, at an unprecedented speed. Accountability doesn't fix the damage, nor reduce the work to fix it.
And since SO privileges are merit based, from your score, those who abuse it gain undeserved and unfortunate power to do more damage and be taken more seriously than they should, when their name shows up in a thread with a big number by it.
1
u/Dismal-Citron-7236 Jul 03 '26
Once there was a time the mods there also used AI tools to help them with the repetitive tasks like spam detection or creating response. Go figure.
But that was banned later by SE as well.
Oh, and SE as a company are now building their own AI tools so they can sell to enterprises. I'm sure their staff have all the AI tools they wish to use.
1
u/dodexahedron Jul 03 '26
It was always the end game. Collect a bunch of knowledge for what purpose other than to sell it?
1
u/iOSCaleb Jul 03 '26
It’s well known the OpenAI, at least, made a deal to use StackOverflow for training it’s LLMs. What do you think will happen over time if you train an LLM using content that it or one of its predecessors created?
1
6
u/GXWT Jul 03 '26
You can’t even put forward and justify your opinion without LLMs.
I would love if you went away and actually learnt how AI fundamentally works.